I think all presidential candidates should be required to take 3 normed IQ tests and have their average score publicly released.

While I don't think IQ truly reflects 'intelligence,' it's still a good indicator of how many variables -- and interrelationships among these variables -- a person can hold in their mind.

We need people who can truly parch a situation in office. Implementing nice sounding policies and laws does no good if you aren't sure how those policies and laws will affect everything else. It's like a gigantic rubix cube on steroids.

Of the above terrible choices I picked Ron Paul. But I can certainly understand why libertarians wouldn't support a man who would would threaten women's self-ownership.

Doesn't he simply say it's not an issue that should be decided by the federal government. Yep, I think that's his stance. Sounds good to me.

At what level do you think legal personhood and human rights protection SHOULD be decided? Shall we leave slavery up to the states too?

Nice red herring, but regardless of your views on slavery, your original statement was not correct. Ron Paul is not a threat to women's "self-ownership." He is against any kind of federal abortion police.

Of the above terrible choices I picked Ron Paul. But I can certainly understand why libertarians wouldn't support a man who would would threaten women's self-ownership.

Doesn't he simply say it's not an issue that should be decided by the federal government. Yep, I think that's his stance. Sounds good to me.

At what level do you think legal personhood and human rights protection SHOULD be decided? Shall we leave slavery up to the states too?

Nice red herring, but regardless of your views on slavery, your original statement was not correct. Ron Paul is not a threat to women's "self-ownership." He is against any kind of federal abortion police.

Slavery is not a fair comparison because slaves couldn't move to a different state (without getting the dogs sent after them). Free women can.

Barack Obama. Not because I think he is any good (I don't) but you poor guys seem only have bad options and the joy of watching the wnd/breibart people erupt in collective outrage is something to look forward too in the cold Winter evenings.

Of the above terrible choices I picked Ron Paul. But I can certainly understand why libertarians wouldn't support a man who would would threaten women's self-ownership.

Doesn't he simply say it's not an issue that should be decided by the federal government. Yep, I think that's his stance. Sounds good to me.

At what level do you think legal personhood and human rights protection SHOULD be decided? Shall we leave slavery up to the states too?

Nice red herring, but regardless of your views on slavery, your original statement was not correct. Ron Paul is not a threat to women's "self-ownership." He is against any kind of federal abortion police.

Slavery is not a fair comparison because slaves couldn't move to a different state (without getting the dogs sent after them). Free women can.

It's not only a completely different issue, the entire "I don't support Ron Paul because of my views on abortion" is a very dishonest (or ignorant) argument. Ron Paul is not going to pass laws that hurt anyone concerned with abortion rights. So that should be the least of your concerns, even if you're a one-issue voter.

I personally am very pro-abortion (haha). But I agree with Ron Paul in principle - as an OBGYN he just believes that a person is a person earlier in the process than I do. I don't think we should legalize killing infants because their mother's lives might be inconvenienced, and many abortions are done for this reason. If you think that the fetus has rights at some point, abortion past that point is indeed murder.

Again - luckily - this shouldn't be an issue in deciding whether or not to vote for Ron Paul. Just like the fact that he's a Christian shouldn't be. Because he's a strict constitutionalist, we can disagree about these philosophical issues and not have to worry about him passing laws that violate our rights. Instead, he will focus on fixing things that have sent us hurtling down the path to destruction, like trying to police the world.

Again - luckily - this shouldn't be an issue in deciding whether or not to vote for Ron Paul. Just like the fact that he's a Christian shouldn't be. Because he's a strict constitutionalist, we can disagree about these philosophical issues and not have to worry about him passing laws that violate our rights. Instead, he will focus on fixing things that have sent us hurtling down the path to destruction, like trying to police the world.

Forget policing the world, the most violent country in the world is just south of Texas, and that's completely our fault.

Again - luckily - this shouldn't be an issue in deciding whether or not to vote for Ron Paul. Just like the fact that he's a Christian shouldn't be. Because he's a strict constitutionalist, we can disagree about these philosophical issues and not have to worry about him passing laws that violate our rights. Instead, he will focus on fixing things that have sent us hurtling down the path to destruction, like trying to police the world.

Forget policing the world, the most violent country in the world is just south of Texas, and that's completely our fault.

Excellent point. Besides being the commander-in-chief and having the power to give us a stronger military presence at home at a much lower cost (do we need 70,000 troops in Germany??) the war on drugs is another place where the president can have an immediate and extremely positive impact on how our country behaves without over-reaching the power given by the constitution.

Again - luckily - this shouldn't be an issue in deciding whether or not to vote for Ron Paul. Just like the fact that he's a Christian shouldn't be.

Those are quite different things. One is his beliefs, and the other is his actions. He is going to remove laws that protect the rights of the citizens.

Just like when he said (video was taken down) that don't ask don't tell has nothing to do with homosexuality, his views on a fertilized egg being a human (that can be murdered) has not been rationally justified. And if it isn't the choice of the mother then who should decide? Current laws protect this religious choice.

Anyone who is against day after pills or contraceptives for anything other than social reasons is not rational. Hence, not suitable for president in my opinion. Until, RP ensures these rights won't be taken away he will not be supported by me.

Again - luckily - this shouldn't be an issue in deciding whether or not to vote for Ron Paul. Just like the fact that he's a Christian shouldn't be.

Those are quite different things. One is his beliefs, and the other is his actions. He is going to remove laws that protect the rights of the citizens.

Just like when he said (video was taken down) that don't ask don't tell has nothing to do with homosexuality, his views on a fertilized egg being a human (that can be murdered) has not been rationally justified. And if it isn't the choice of the mother then who should decide? Current laws protect this religious choice.

Anyone who is against day after pills or contraceptives for anything other than social reasons is not rational. Hence, not suitable for president in my opinion. Until, RP ensures these rights won't be taken away he will not be supported by me.

My vote- none of the above.

Your vote will always be none of the above if you have to stretch this far to find a fault with a candidate. Ron Paul will not remove any laws that "protect citizen's rights." If you're talking about overturning Roe-vs-Wade you are misrepresenting the issue to bias opinion.

Have fun worrying about how abortion laws might have changed when the dollar collapses and you can't buy food or gas.

Of the above terrible choices I picked Ron Paul. But I can certainly understand why libertarians wouldn't support a man who would would threaten women's self-ownership.

Doesn't he simply say it's not an issue that should be decided by the federal government. Yep, I think that's his stance. Sounds good to me.

At what level do you think legal personhood and human rights protection SHOULD be decided? Shall we leave slavery up to the states too?

Nice red herring, but regardless of your views on slavery, your original statement was not correct. Ron Paul is not a threat to women's "self-ownership." He is against any kind of federal abortion police.

Slavery is not a fair comparison because slaves couldn't move to a different state (without getting the dogs sent after them). Free women can.

It's not only a completely different issue, the entire "I don't support Ron Paul because of my views on abortion" is a very dishonest (or ignorant) argument. Ron Paul is not going to pass laws that hurt anyone concerned with abortion rights. So that should be the least of your concerns, even if you're a one-issue voter.

I personally am very pro-abortion (haha). But I agree with Ron Paul in principle - as an OBGYN he just believes that a person is a person earlier in the process than I do. I don't think we should legalize killing infants because their mother's lives might be inconvenienced, and many abortions are done for this reason. If you think that the fetus has rights at some point, abortion past that point is indeed murder.

Again - luckily - this shouldn't be an issue in deciding whether or not to vote for Ron Paul. Just like the fact that he's a Christian shouldn't be. Because he's a strict constitutionalist, we can disagree about these philosophical issues and not have to worry about him passing laws that violate our rights. Instead, he will focus on fixing things that have sent us hurtling down the path to destruction, like trying to police the world.

First of all, I'm in agreement that he's the least bad of the above choices. I might even vote for him anyways, because yeah there are other issues. Personal accusations of dishonesty hurt my feelings, so I would rather discuss Paul and his positions... Maybe I'm just ignorant about something, please give me the benefit of the doubt. This is one of those few internet arguments you could actually "win".

Paul certainly COULD sign laws that would harm abortion rights, he does have influence over the issue. Even in the case of constitutional amendments, the president can and will trade favors to influence the outcome. We're talking about making someone one of the most powerful men on Earth.

Slavery (and corporate personhood) are valid comparisons with regards to legal personhood being determined at the federal level. It's easy for us rich folks to just waltz across state borders, but for pregnant women facing social stigma and possible poverty, even local prohibition is a huge disincentive to abort. Slaves could run away too, but I'd rather we focus on this topic rather than play the analogy game all week.

So my question to you guys, if I may repeat - what level of government should be responsible forA. deciding legal personhood, andB. protecting human rights?